3pt. Log Splitter?

I've got a 960 with remote hydraulics. There's a decent, cheap 3pt. log splitter for sale near me. I know it'll be slow, but what kind of splitting power can I expect from my 960? I'm just splitting what I can't lift onto the trailer, not doing a year's worth of firewood.

(quoted from post at 10:57:44 10/01/14) I've got a 960 with remote hydraulics. There's a decent, cheap 3pt. log splitter for sale near me. I know it'll be slow, but what kind of splitting power can I expect from my 960? I'm just splitting what I can't lift onto the trailer, not doing a year's worth of firewood.

Click to expand...

epending upon splitting cylinder diameter, probably powerful enough, just about 4 or 5 times slower than a good self contained splitter.

I would agree, will be slow. There are some on these forums who would know how to calculate what you will get, if you provided the cylinder size, and its actually not complicated, I just don't retain the information as others do, but you do see it as a discussion topic often. Sometimes its how you configure things.

Essentially, this era of tractors may not match up to a splitter and be efficient.

You can look at the OEM specifications for the tractor's hydraulics, and what a self contained splitter has, likely see the difference.

I am aware of other possibilities, front mount pump for a loader, but being a 960, not likely, so maybe a pto pump, to either get more pressure, volume, to increase the speed of the cylinder, but you would need a reservoir and I am not sure of the valve, and overall configuration.

Whats interesting about this question, is what would be the best way to equip this particular tractor to run a 3 pt splitter as efficiently as possible, optimum RPM's for fuel consumption, and still provide decent performance of that spitter.

Best left to someone who knows more than I LOL !

I would say a compact or modern small tractor, that has modern hydraulics which would seemingly be closer to or is what you need, would be most efficient, I know our 33 hp challenger would be fuel efficient with a 3 pt splitter and you could work off the tractors hydraulics. Nice advantage if you like to split where you cut or as you say load the trailer where the logs are.

I have an 801, good hydraulics, just to try my 3pt splitter (TSC) on it, very slow, I use the splitter on a green tractor the pump is about 10 gpm just the right speed just off idle.

Adding a small engine, pump and reservoir to the splitter frame would be much more efficient, both in terms of providing the flow required by the splitter and for fuel economy.

Why run a 50 hp engine at high enough rpm's to get minimal hydraulic flow while the tractor is sitting there doing nothing else when a more modern, more fuel efficient 5 to 8 hp engine with a properly sized pump would provide much better results?

When the engine on my splitter gave out, I hooked it up to my 850.
The 3GPM internal pump develops plenty of force, but it's very
slow. I piped it in to the front pump for the loader and now I can
split nicely with the throttle not much over minimum or if I have
help, goose it up a bit and keep a crew hopping. As for fuel, it's not
all that bad. The tractor engine is just loafing along, the B&S engine
was screaming to do the same job. Ideally I would have a Prince
pump so I could use any tractor, but the whole idea was to get it
working for cheap as I only split a few cords a year.